McAlpin Clarke v. Marriott International, Inc.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 CARMEN MCALPIN CLARKE, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2008-CV-0086 v. 5 5 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Rachelle M. Shocklee, Esq. ORDER REGARDING MOTION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAY OF DISCOVERY AND SEPARATE TRIAL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For Partial Stay of Discovery and Separate Trial (Docket No. 12). Plaintiff filed an opposition to said motion. The time for filing a reply has expired. Being advised in the premises and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that a partial stay of discovery in an effort to attempt to determine the relationship between Defendant and the property where Plaintiff alleges the underlying incident occurred before conducting other discovery is warranted. The Court further finds that the issue of bifurcation is premature. Thus, the Court will deny that request without prejudice, and Defendant may renew its motion at a more appropriate juncture. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_08-cv-00086/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_08-cv-00086-0.pdf
SHA-256 bce76f41cf56ac5448e286bae683874477ac5b4bf312d76c90850d9efcd3e2b0
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-bce76f41cf56
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 CARMEN MCALPIN CLARKE, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2008-CV-0086 v. 5 5 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Rachelle M. Shocklee, Esq. ORDER REGARDING MOTION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAY OF DISCOVERY AND SEPARATE TRIAL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For Partial Stay of Discovery and Separate Trial (Docket No. 12). Plaintiff filed an opposition to said motion. The time for filing a reply has expired. Being advised in the premises and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that a partial stay of discovery in an effort to attempt to determine the relationship between Defendant and the property where Plaintiff alleges the underlying incident occurred before conducting other discovery is warranted. The Court further finds that the issue of bifurcation is premature. Thus, the Court will deny that request without prejudice, and Defendant may renew its motion at a more appropriate juncture. Case: 1:08-cv-00086-WAL-GWC Document #: 14 Filed: 02/18/09 Page 1 of 2 Clarke v. Marriott International, Inc. 2008-CV-0086 Order Regarding Defendant’s Motion For Partial Stay and Separate Trial Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion For Partial Stay of Discovery and Separate Trial (Docket No. 12) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 2. Defendant’s motion for partial stay of discovery is GRANTED. 3. Discovery shall be limited to the issue of the relationship between Defendant and the St. Kitts Resort and Royal Beach Casino in an attempt to determine Defendant’s liability, if any. All other discovery in this matter is STAYED for a period of sixty (60) days. 3. Defendant’s motion for separate trial is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ENTER: Dated: February 18, 2009 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:08-cv-00086-WAL-GWC Document #: 14 Filed: 02/18/09 Page 2 of 2